From Nobody to Somebody

The first step to repairing the disarray in our society is to identify what needs to be changed. Hill’s writing makes it clear that there are a variety of issues we should take notice of, but the egregious treatment of the disadvantaged and impoverished is clearly an incredibly significant issue. Now that we’ve identified places that need help society should have a responsibility to adequately spread their resources to help those in need. Police brutality and relations between the black community has also continued to be an issue that needs to be addressed if we want to start helping these vulnerable populations. First and foremost I think police should have more training and more severe punishments for violent infractions against civilians. Before any relations in the community will change people have to see the violent behavior end and be able to trust law enforcement officers.  

In terms of our drug laws and the congested criminal justice system, I find it extremely difficult to justify keeping some archaic anti-drug laws that are used to convict mostly black males. Laws that criminalize small amounts of marijuana are often used to persecute disadvantaged populations which we see on a daily basis in our justice system. The draconian, inflexible laws that were used to protect citizens are now often used to continue the cycle of poverty and crime in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Arrests for small amounts of drugs should not be prosecuted as harsh felonies; rather, I think jail is meant for dangerous and violent criminals. Laws need to be reviewed to catch up to the times and the thousands of non-violent criminals incarcerated for small drug infractions should be released. Incarceration itself should be a rehabilitative process and but for violent offenders (incarcerated for life) it should focus on how to help people return to society to become a successful citizen. 

The Media, Real Women and Gender Oppression

I think it is nearly impossible to reflect real life in a television or movie. The media, in general, makes reality so distorted that I’m not sure it’s even distinguishable in some cases. Take fake news, for example, it not only distorts our views of reality, often it gives straight misinformation. In movies, it’s impossible to represent the complexity of day to day life in less than a couple hours. Not only that, Douglas tears into the idea of the reality TV and how it really does not depict society or women. Shows like The Real Housewives, Jersey Shore, and Keeping Up With The Kardashian, just to name a few, have given young girls a completely unrealistic view of women and femininity. The ways women are pictured in the media continues to reinforce gender stereotypes that ultimately oppress us in society. They expose gender inequality when you look at the way these women are portrayed and sexualized. The saturation of powerful fictional characters in the media truly does give the illusion that we have reached a greater peak of ‘enlightenment’ than we really have. It’s clear that in the media women are portraying an unrealistic view of women and femininity. I think it’s unfortunate that the media makes it so difficult for young women to differentiate the glamor of Hollywood and acting compared to the real world. I don’t feel that the media adequately reflects women’s real lives because it’s impossible to capture its intricacy. The media draws attention to unconscious reminders that women, while they can be powerful, are still inferior to men. 

Changing the World One Click at a Time?

I think based on recent events like the Black Lives Matter movement it has been proven that social media plays at least a part in how change is introduced in our society. Given the scope and reach of the media, there are few alternatives that would allow the same number of people to be exposed to the same information. Social media like Facebook and Twitter have the ability to rapidly share information, accurate or not. The speed that news is now spread is epidemic-like because society today has an incredible emphasis on using social media. Since there are so many like-minded people, it becomes a lot easier to influence a great number of individuals. It can be used to mobilize people by sharing information and ideas, but the trouble with social media (and the internet) is that people are free to hide behind their screens. While it has the capacity to send the message “Get out there, go do something!” most of the time I feel it is just an outlet to talk about ideals, not to actually take action. In order for true social or political change to take place, the battle must be won through our physical society and not the online communities that form. The good news is I feel social media does have the capacity to be much more beneficial and as current movements have demonstrated we are moving in the right direction. The women’s march is a good example of the media spreading awareness and asking for a call to action. The call to action is what I believe is missing in many cases because this is what distinguishes simply sharing an opinion online, and actually going out to make a real difference in the world. In earlier times of social and political change, this was the only way to do things, in many ways social media has made us lazy and unmotivated. It’s much easier to post a strongly worded status update then to get in the car and drive down to the local community march. Overall, while I feel social media has the ability to mobilize and empower people, we are still a ways away from being able to effectively use it. 

Are Small Schools Better?

            Several studies in recent years have found the merit in choosing smaller schools versus larger schools. Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein of New York City have begun the process of disbanding larger high schools in favor of separating them into smaller school. For students requiring special attention, it is extremely difficult to provide every child with a superior education if there are not enough faculty to support the student population.

At my school I am lucky to have a small student to teacher ratio. At some schools ratios can be 50:1 or more which makes it nearly impossible to be able to form meaningful relationships with every student. Some of the relationships I have formed during my education have provided me with invaluable mentors and opportunities I would never have sought out without their encouragement.

Education is a pivotal pillar in our society and significant funding and thought should go into our education system. I agree that smaller schools are more effective because it is simply not feasible to reach every student if you have a population of thousands or tens of thousands of students. I find it extremely important to make sure every student has the opportunity for an education and the structure of the institution can have an enormous effect on student success.

The benefits of having a smaller classroom mean teachers can take more time to individually assess and assist students. Having hands on instructors who are able to connect with students will provide a far superior experience. I think access to resources like tutors or meeting with teachers before or after school are imperative to allow children the opportunity to truly learn and understand the world around them.

More places in the United States should evaluate the sizes of their schools and classrooms to ensure they are actually educating a large audience, not just filling seats in a classroom. Larger high schools may offer additional classes, such as in Naperville, IL schools, with an average of 3,000 students or more, have classes like Latin and Mandarin. In California and Texas some high schools are as large as 7,000-9,000 students. So while these classes might be available at larger schools, if less students are graduating and receiving a thorough education are these options truly even options?

 Having a larger school might provide greater opportunities for students. However, the benefits of having smaller, more intimate classroom and school sizes are apparent. Do your research when you are looking at high school options or moving to a new school district. The graduation rate between smaller (less than 5,000) and larger (5,000 or more) schools is significant with small school having around 15% higher graduation rates.

When determining what the best choice for you and your education is, I implore you to keep these success rates in mind. Next time you have the choice between a small school with a lot of faculty support or a massive complex where you are lost in the crowd, think of these success rates. The choice is yours, but the research is clear; you are much more likely to be successful in a small school with more individualized opportunities. 

Op-ed

For my op-ed pieces, I will argue that small school classroom sizes are more effective than larger institutions. I will also describe the benefits and defend the practice of flex-time and work from home solutions in the corporate world.  

Blog prompt #4: Is Polarization a Bad Thing?

Is Polarization a Bad Thing?

One of the issues Ronald Jacobs and Eleanor Townsley address in their book The Space of Opinion is the popular fear that the sort of partisan narrative and views aired cable opinions shows are contributing to polarization:

To the extent that these kinds of narratives reinforce the partisan political identification of viewers, and to the extent that they encourage those viewers to see the opposing party as morally weak or even evil, then it becomes more difficult to organize a public dialogue built around mutual respect, trust or openness.

      While these patterns are certainly problematic and justify much of the public concern that has been expressed about the growing influence of the cable news networks, we think it would be a mistake to simply condemn the newer formats. The audience for cable television's opinion shows has different levels of knowledge and media engagement than its general news audience...(Jacobs and Townsley 238).

What do you think? Are the "newer formats"-- the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, The Daily Show, The Rachel Maddow Show, etc.-- contributing to political polarization and a breakdown of dialogue and mutual respect across America's various ideological divides?  

            I do not think the political polarization that is present in our society today was nonexistent in the past. I think because of the surplus of public forums it is easy for people to seek out only opinions they want to hear (confirmation bias). Thus the political polarization, in part, has always been part of society. Now that there is a slew of different ‘new format’ shows, radio podcasts, etc. which use a satirical and sometimes exaggerated view. Since we have so many ways that enable us to be narrow-minded, it is no surprise that the increase in popularity of these types of media certainly influences the breakdown of discussion and trust that is needed for effective dialogue.

Or, does such programming actually raise the level of knowledge and the political engagement of its audiences?

            In some ways I can see that this programming could be beneficial to society in terms of gaining awareness. The issue, however, lies in the way the media portrays situations, especially politics at this time. While it could engage people more, I think the distinct bias for more of these media platforms makes it clear that it is not necessarily raising public knowledge (effectively).

Could the popularity of such shows actually be good for democracy?

            The shows are popular because they focus on mocking our culture or using skits to try and understand the world around us. I see the benefits of this, and acknowledge that giving the public information that is easy to understand is better than receiving no information at all. 

Blog Prompt # 3: Expert Commentary, Academic Feilds and Intellectual Diversity

In your view, what academic fields or disciplines (Sociology, Psychology, Economics, Political Science, English, History, etc.) are most well represented in the media and which tend to be less common or invisible?

I think economics and politics are certainly very well represented in the media because they are consistent topics of controversy and conversation in our society. Politics especially is constantly in the news and media; it is almost inescapable. Given the current political climate, the media has latched onto the drama surrounding the election and its aftermath so it has received an enormous amount of media attention. To an extent sociology is a large portion of the media as well. Though it is not always as direct or prevalent, social movements like black lives matter are strongly rooted in the sociology of our culture.

Also, how diverse are the intellectual or philosophical perspectives of the majority of commentators in the media? Are there certain perspectives that are over-represented in discussions taking place in the media? Are there perspectives that are under-represented or even stigmatized and actively scorned?

Due to the massive platforms on social media, be it Twitter, television, radio, etc. there are certainly many different perspectives out there. As we discussed in class, those with the strongest voices, however, are often intellectuals. I think there are equally as many philosophical perspectives out there to make the media as a whole an extremely diverse sphere. Right now I feel the most over-represented topic in the media is definitely politics, including the presidential election and the scrutiny our president is under. I think the media is saturated with negativity and pessimistic perspectives from some media platforms and representatives. Just as there are things that are over-represented there are also things being ignored and given less attention. I think the main reason for this is because there isn’t enough room, there is too much attention given to politics and negativity that there’s isn’t ample opportunity for other topics to receive more media attention.